Thursday, January 29, 2015

Lynch’s behavior toward predominantly white sportswriters follows a pattern of hostility by black NFL players that I mentioned yesterday. Following the Super Bowl, expect to hear demands by said players for more colored sportswriters.

“While the Patriots are dealing with the footballs and the fire alarms, the Seattle Seahawks have been dealing with fines. Marshawn Lynch has been the subject of the media. He was one of the top stories during the last Super Bowl for his unwillingness to talk to the media. He has been the topic of discussion again for his brief and repetitive answers that he has been giving to reporters. On Tuesday he answered every question with the quick comment of ‘I'm just here so I don't get fined.’ On Wednesday he assumed that everyone already knew why he was there, so that was his new answer.”

Various alliterate sloths of the Web and Hollywood saw the headline, and that was all they bothered to read, because that’s all they ever read!

Over ten years ago, my old editor A.J. Toogood told me that most people read only headlines on the Web, and while I suspected he was right, there was no way to test his hypothesis. Well, A.J., consider yourself to have unfortunately passed the test. I wish you’d been proven wrong.

Som time today, Grantland not only changed the title, but disappeared the article. When I checked its front page about an hour ago, all mention of the Hackman profile had been wiped clean. I had to find it via Google. And so, as a favor to Hyden, not that he asked me to do so, or necessarily knows me from Adam, I have decided to reprint it below in toto.

Note that while Grantland has a comments container, its censors keep it invisible to readers, while I permit comments.

The Gene Hackman performance that sticks with me the most didn’t occur in one of his 79 films, but rather in a profile written by Roger Ebert for the Chicago Sun-Times in 1971. Hackman stopped in town on the way to a family reunion in Danville, Illinois, where the Hackman clan settled after wandering across four different states during Gene’s early childhood. Hackman later escaped the Midwest by talking his way into the Marines at 16, and after he was discharged four and a half years later, he wandered some more, living briefly in New York, Florida, back in Danville, then back to New York, and then back to the state where he was born, California, where he was enrolled at and swiftly dismissed from the Pasadena Playhouse. Then Hackman wandered more still, back again to New York and a string of odd jobs that propped up his acting ambitions.

Warner Bros.

Hackman’s ship didn’t come in until his mid-thirties, and it took losing another job for it to happen. After getting bounced from The Graduate — he was to play his best friend “Dusty” Hoffman’s prospective father-in-law, despite being only seven years Hoffman’s senior — Hackman was cast in the other paradigm-shifting event movie of 1967, Bonnie and Clyde, eventually garnering his first Oscar nomination for his nervy performance as Clyde’s brother, Buck Barrow. Three years later, Hackman was nominated again, this time in the punishing family drama I Never Sang for My Father.

He couldn’t have planned it this way, but Hackman had aged into a screen persona — he looked like he had spent years driving a truck or working as a doorman before lucking into the movies, because that’s basically what had happened. Hackman might’ve studied the Method under Lee Strasberg (“He played with people’s heads a lot,” he recalled derisively of Strasberg in 2001), but he could just be and be authentic onscreen.

When Ebert interviewed Hackman over steaks at famed Chicago restaurant the Pump Room, Hackman was 41 and about to transition from Oscar-nominated actor to Oscar-winning superstar. The French Connection had just come out and was already a box office sensation. In the film, Hackman is Popeye Doyle, one of the great ’70s antiheroes, a combination Dirty Harry/Archie Bunker who flaunts his racism and unscrupulous policing methods as shamelessly as his schlubby-chic porkpie hat. Hackman subsequently played variations on Popeye throughout his career — his type was the old-school, take-charge man’s man who must harness his inextinguishable rage or risk being destroyed by it.

“I’m not that kind of guy. He was a physical man,” Hackman said of Popeye in the Ebert interview. “We had to go back and re-shoot the first two days of scenes because I hadn’t gotten into the character enough. I wasn’t physical enough.”

Dining with Hackman and Ebert was Hackman’s dad, Gene Sr., who had made his living working on newspaper presses many years prior. Ebert asked Hackman to compare Popeye Doyle to the more passive character he played in I Never Sang for My Father, who also happened to be named Gene. In its own way, I Never Sang is just as unrelenting as The French Connection, only instead of being mentally tormented by a suave French drug lord, Hackman grapples with the dread of every encounter with his distant, judgmental patriarch.1 And, unlike in The French Connection, Hackman is never afforded the catharsis of shooting somebody.

Hackman complained about how trying I Never Sang for My Father was for him. “He was always whining,” he said. “I kept working at it to find ways to release that, but I never could.” He insisted the part wasn’t at all autobiographical.

Hackman then turned to his own father and asked Gene Sr. if he’d seen the movie.

“No, I didn’t see that one,” he said.

“I thought you had.”

“No,” Hackman’s father said, “I didn’t very much want to see it. I heard from some other people what it was about, and I didn’t think of myself as that kind of a father, so I didn’t go.”

“See?” Hackman said.

What Ebert didn’t know — because Hackman didn’t discuss it for another couple of decades — was that Gene Sr. had abandoned his family when his son was 13. The younger Hackman was playing in the street when it happened. His father deigned only a faint wave before departing.

“It was a real adios,” Hackman told Vanity Fair in 2004. “It was so precise. Maybe that’s why I became an actor. I doubt I would have become so sensitive to human behavior if that hadn’t happened to me as a child — if I hadn’t realized how much one small gesture can mean.”

Hackman developed his own repertoire of small gestures. Growing up in the Midwest, the explosive dynamism of his idol, James Cagney, wouldn’t do. So Hackman instead brought a little Danville demeanor to Hollywood, expressing himself via jocular forms of misdirection that deflected the true feelings of his characters. There’s the funny little “heh-heh” laugh that recurs in all of his films and never seems to express genuine mirth. There’s the too-wide smile that crinkles his eyes, and then slowly falls into a tight-lipped smirk. There’s the way his sandpaper purr cracks whenever he increases the volume too quickly, evoking a levee holding back a tidal wave of emotion that’s about to give way.

Taken together, these gestures enabled Hackman to act one way externally and convey the opposite truth of what was happening with his characters internally. Audiences instinctively understood this, like they would if they were conversing with their own beloved yet guarded family members. Hackman couldn’t have made himself more clear if he had just come out and said, “See?”

♦♦♦

Gene Hackman turns 85 on Friday. He hasn’t made a movie in 11 years — insert Welcome to Mooseport joke here — and likely won’t ever make one again. When asked by Yahoo Movies in 2014 if there’s any chance of audiences seeing him onscreen again, Hackman replied, “Only in reruns.”

If you love movies, it’s hard not to miss him. So, for the past month I’ve been watching Gene Hackman films — not just the iconic ones,2 but also the deep cuts, good and bad. Almost all of them are worth seeing, because Hackman himself is almost always worth seeing, but also because the man had a knack for picking projects that have only gotten more strange with time.

I refer to films like Prime Cut, in which Hackman plays a Kansas City gangster named Mary Ann who forces Sissy Spacek to lie naked in a pen at a sex slave farm until Lee Marvin comes along; Cisco Pike, a far-out drug thriller set in early-’70s Los Angeles in which Hackman plays Big Foot Bjornsen to Kris Kristofferson’s Doc Sportello; and Loose Cannons, a confoundingly stupid buddy-cop comedy costarring Dan Aykroyd that has one of the all-time great Netflix plot summaries.3 (Though, regrettably, it doesn’t mention the part where Dom DeLuise fires a machine gun at a gang of bumbling neo-Nazis.)

Orion Pictures

I was searching for a thread in Hackman’s movies, and for a while I wasn’t sure I’d find one. Unlike his contemporaries Dustin Hoffman and Robert Duvall — Hackman’s running mates in the late-’50s/early-’60s New York City theater scene, and the other defining examples of the “not quite a leading man, not quite a character actor” type — Hackman didn’t have passion projects. When Hackman had the clout to function as the reigning auteur on set, he chose not to take advantage. He instead approached the material as a craftsman-for-hire — speak the lines as written, get the story across, execute the take, cash the check. When asked by GQ in 2011 what he wanted his epitaph to be, Hackman was customarily humble: “He tried.”

Nevertheless, there is a thematic link in Hackman’s movies, and it doesn’t square with the word most often used to describe him: Everyman. On the contrary, Hackman played exceptionalists — cops, lawyers, coaches, military leaders, heads of industry, Lex Luthor. For more than 30 years, people bought movie tickets to watch Hackman take charge. He was a molder of men: Hackman taught Redford how to ski, DiCaprio how to shoot, and Keanu how to play quarterback.

As the culture’s perspective on Great White Males changed, so did cinema’s view of Hackman. If you want to chart how attitudes about power shifted in the late 20th century, Gene Hackman movies are a good place to start. His filmography unfolds as a treatise on how authority is established, then corrupted, then dissolved.

In the Watergate-weary ’70s, Hackman was a capable man called on to fail, again and again. Popeye Doyle in The French Connection kills a fellow cop and lets Fernando Rey evade capture. Harry Caul in The Conversation is duped by his own surveillance and allows his client to be murdered. In the underrated noir Night Moves, Hackman is private detective Harry Moseby, who is lied to by everybody and seems resigned to it; when his wife, who is cuckolding him, asks who’s winning the football game he’s sullenly watching, Moseby says, “Nobody, one side’s just losing more slowly than the other.” Even in Scarecrow, Hackman’s personal favorite of his films, the one in which he plays a penniless drifter named Max Millan, Hackman loses the one thing he has: the adoration of his friend, Lion (Al Pacino), who winds up getting institutionalized right before the pals can realize their dream of opening a car wash.

This is the Gene Hackman I miss the most, because I can’t think of a contemporary analogue. Perhaps Philip Seymour Hoffman occupies this lane in an alternate universe where he lived out his own richly dissatisfying middle age and inspired first-rate directors to plumb their own psyches. Otherwise, the Hackman of the ’70s seems very much a product of his time, a too-brief hiccup when art and commerce magically aligned in the favor of a balding monument to embittered personal dysfunction.

But there are other Hackmans that have proven to be more easily replicated. Hackman started to win in the Reagan ’80s, an era when father figures were restored to hero status, no matter their past sins, in a way that now seems reminiscent of our current paternal asskicker-in-chief, Liam Neeson. For Target, Arthur Penn,4 who also directed Hackman in Night Moves, bowed to the times and made his star a retired CIA operative who must save his wife and impress his son (Matt Dillon) by shaking off his put-upon civilian meekness and killing some scheming Germans. After making the first Rambo film, First Blood, director Ted Kotcheff used Hackman in Uncommon Valor, putting him in command of a team of mercenaries rounded out by Patrick Swayze and Randall “Tex” Cobb and funded by Robert Stack (!) that is dispatched to Laos to rescue Hackman’s POW son, without any meddling politicians or hippies getting in the way.

In Hackman’s most celebrated movie from this period, Hoosiers, he arrives in a small Indiana town not unlike Danville, a former college coach who’s drummed out of the big time for striking a student but retains his stern methods because he knows what’s best for the kids. Then there’s the crudely compelling Mississippi Burning, a true-life civil-rights-era drama that illustrates just how mendacious this kind of movie was permitted to be before every junior historian had access to Wikipedia and a Twitter account. Director Alan Parker depicts a Southern town as a bastion of faceless KKK zombies; it’s like The Walking Deadneck. The film is a historical travesty, but a pretty good cop thriller: Hackman plays another iteration of Popeye, a fed who must “do it his way” for justice to be parceled out.

By the ’90s, the culture swung back to skepticism over paternal authority, and Hackman was packaged accordingly with up-and-comers looking to vanquish him as a rite of passage. In The Firm, Hackman acts first as a mentor for Tom Cruise and then as a cautionary tale about how selling your soul to an evil Memphis-based law practice is a bad idea. In another John Grisham adaptation, The Chamber, Hackman is the imprisoned racist grandfather to idealistic lawyer Chris O’Donnell, who must rise above his revulsion and rescue the old bastard before Hackman is executed. In Enemy of the State, Hackman took Harry Caul out of mothballs and plugged him into a supercharged Will Smith vehicle about how creepy it is when Jon Voight stalks you. In The Quick and the Dead, Hackman killed three birds with one stone, playing the mean ol’ cuss for the benefit of Sharon Stone, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Russell Crowe.

Then there’s Crimson Tide, in which this happens:

When threatened, Hackman retreats to his glasses and clipboard, the accoutrements of command. And how does Denzel respond? “I DO NOT RECOGNIZE YOUR AUTHORITY.” Like that, Denzel Washington becomes Gene Hackman right before your eyes.5 And Denzel held on to that role in subsequent movies. Flash forward 20 years and it’s Denzel playing daddy to Mark Wahlberg in 2 Guns.

As for Hackman, it’s as if he were liberated from the responsibilities of his old self. In the final decade of his film career, Hackman resumed playing doctors (Extreme Measures), lawyers (Runaway Jury), coaches (The Replacements), military leaders (Behind Enemy Lines), and even the president (Absolute Power). But the parts that people remember are the ones in which Hackman played against type and embraced his inner buffoon — in Get Shorty, as B-movie producer Harry Zimm, and as the titular character in The Royal Tenenbaums, a tragicomic bookend for I Never Sang for My Father, this time with no whining and a few more laughs.

In 2001, Hackman confessed to David Edelstein that he felt “very conflicted” while making The Royal Tenenbaums, “because people were much younger than me and I felt left out or ignored. And that wasn’t even true. I knew it wasn’t true, but I used it anyway.” Like Royal Tenenbaum, Gene Hackman’s alienation derived from the accumulated weight of his personal history. He had finally aged into only a persona. Perhaps it was time to step away. While Wes Anderson wanted Hackman again to humanize one of his life-size dioramas,6 in his own mind Hackman was already on the road to Mooseport.

♦♦♦

Touchstone Pictures [The Royal Tenenbaums]

Another oft-made claim about Gene Hackman that you learn is untrue after digging deep into his back catalogue is that he never gave a bad performance. I’m sorry to report that Hackman sort of sucks in The Poseidon Adventure, the first and only time he headlined a big-budget blockbuster.

He plays the Reverend Frank Scott, sailing aboard a massive ocean liner filled with assorted disaster-movie ringers while preaching a bizarre proto–Tea Party doctrine of self-reliance that appears to defy conventional Christian faith. “God loves triers,” Scott declares, and is subsequently proven right when the ship flips upside down and legions of Leslie Nielsens and Shelley Winterses without the wherewithal to climb to safety are killed.

“When I was working on it, I was kind of ashamed of myself,” Hackman told Edelstein, claiming that he still hadn’t dared to watch the movie. “I had to have my hair poufed up at the end and slicked over. And the producer, Irwin Allen, was one of those guys who used to comb his hair from one ear across the top of his head, and I just didn’t want to look like him.”

Hackman for me is the greatest living American actor because — with the exception of the Reverend Frank Scott in The Poseidon Adventure — I always buy what he’s selling. Even when the movie is bad, you believe what Hackman is telling you, right down to the last “heh-heh.”

Hackman retired from movies for the first time at the end of the ’70s, but was coaxed back by Warren Beatty to appear in Reds. However, I don’t doubt Hackman now when he says that he’s finished. In interviews, he has acknowledged his strained relationships with directors and other actors, a byproduct of his perfectionism. He’s also hinted at feeling estranged from his children after spending so much time away from home on movie sets.

Even when these feelings of separation weren’t based in reality, Hackman had to manufacture them for his job. For his role as the sadist sheriff Little Bill in Unforgiven, which won him his second Oscar and might be my favorite Hackman movie performance, he worked himself up for a scene in which Bill savagely beats an outlaw played by Richard Harris by drawing on his disappointment over Harris not remembering the time they had previously worked together 26 years earlier, on 1966’s Hawaii.

“Of course, I wasn’t really angry with him. I love him, I think he’s terrific,” Hackman told Edelstein. “But I remember thinking, ‘Oh, I can use this.’ I just took that disappointment and did this kind of transference.”

Hackman drew on that sort of negative energy — the unshakable feeling that he wasn’t good enough to warrant consideration — as motivation for much of his life, perhaps starting with the moment in the street when he watched his father walk out on him. It propelled his characters as they searched in vain for something that wasn’t there, like that scene in The Conversation when Caul tears through his apartment, floorboard by floorboard, hunting for surveillance devices.

I miss Gene Hackman, but I’m also happy for him. He writes books now.7 You can still hear him reading copy in Lowe’s commercials. His wandering days seem to be behind him. Hopefully, he’s found a safe place in which to blow.

Editor’s note: Because of an unintentional misunderstanding stemming from our original headline, “The Greatest Living American Actor at 85: Gene Hackman Is Gone But Still in Charge,” we’ve changed the title of this piece. Mr. Hackman is very much alive.

A Chicago woman who alleges she was beaten and robbed in an alley by her West Loop condominium is suing her condo association and its security providers over claims they failed to keep her safe.

The woman filed suit Thursday in the Cook County Circuit Court against R+D659 Condominium Association, Lieberman Management Services and Admiral Security Services Inc., as well as one of its security guards. She also sued Curtis Williams, the man who was arrested and is facing charges over the incident.

According to the complaint, the woman was walking home alone at about 11:30 p.m. on March 17, when a man grabbed her from behind, wrapped his arm around her neck, punched her and dragged her from near the entrance of her condo building at 659 W. Randolph Street to an alley.

She claims the man pinned her to the ground and tried to pull down her pants while continuing to punch her in the face and knee her in the abdomen before running off with her purse. The man was later identified as Williams, the suit states.

When she went into the lobby of her condo, the suit alleges the security guard was not at the front desk and she couldn’t find a phone to call 911. The guard eventually returned and called police for her.

The woman asserts she sustained serious injuries that required her to seek medical treatment as a direct result of the defendants’ negligence, t [sic]

Because the condo association and management company had a security guard, secured entryway and camera surveillance at the building, the woman asserts it had a duty to protect her, but failed to do so.

She accuses the security company and its employee of failing to provide adequate security by not monitoring the area and employing a security guard who left his post unmanned. Her suit includes a battery count against Williams.

The woman is represented by Jennifer K. Scifo of Kralovec Jambois & Schwartz in Chicago.

Cook County Circuit Court Case Number 2015L000160.

This is a report on a civil lawsuit filed in Cook County Circuit Court. The details in this report come from an original complaint filed by a plaintiff. Please note, a complaint represents an accusation by a private individual, not the government. It is not an indication of guilt and represents only one side of the story.

The thing to keep in mind is that every white man who watches football or basketball is himself personally putting money into the pockets of negro criminals and their white apologists/cheerleaders.

The "but I like football" crap is bogus. I like cocaine, but I know how harmful the substance is not only to myself but to our society overall. Just quit it. Spend the time reading. Spend the time watching old westerns. Spend the time with your kids. Spend the time scratching yourself, if you prefer. Just STOP supporting negro thug millionaires and the media. Starve them out. If you don't, then stop the hypocrisy and become a full-fledged negro fanboy, cheering for illiterates who make more in a year than you'll make in a lifetime.

Trust me, quitting is easy. It's harder convincing friends and family to quit with you, but the conversation needs to occur. Turn off your TV next Sunday and discuss negro crime for four hours instead.

N.S.: I wish it were so easy. I grew up playing (badly) baseball, football, and basketball, and constantly watching them. It is simply not normal for a red-blooded American boy to grow up and swear off pro sports.

However, I watch less and less, and race is part of the reason, the entire reason, where the NBA is concerned. I haven’t watched an NBA game in years, because of black supremacism. (On rare occasion, I’ll watch college or NBA highlights during TV news, but I rarely watch those broadcasts, either.)

During the mid-1980s, after being away for almost 10 years, I noticed that black NBA players were flagrantly violating basic rules, like traveling and palming. Then during the late 1990s, they began flagrantly assaulting and bettering white head coaches.

I still watch Jet losses, but at the rate at which pro football players are openly displaying their black supremacism, the NFL will be next.

With baseball, the problem is reconquista, which is another story for another time.

Tuesday, January 27, 2015

Don’t blink! That’s how sudden things happen here. It’s a mere 25-minute episode, but it feels like twice as long, not because it drags, but because it’s so intense.

The series opens with Dave Blassingame (Brian Keith) addressing the love of his life, from atop his horse:

“Go on, Dog. We got a long way to go, yet. We got us a man to kill, when we get there.”

When they get to town, it’s dark. A blond woman offering a Christian tract that he pays her for sweetly tells him,

“There’s no charge for salvation.”

You’d better hold tight to the reins, viewer, or you might fall off your mount, and break your neck!

Unfortunately, in spite of the success of the Peckinpah-created The Rifleman, which was going strong at the time on ABC, NBC pulled the plug on this series after a mere 13-episode buy. It was strong drink for viewers and network suits alike at the time, but introduced preoccupations that its creator would spend the next nine years working out, by the end of which he will have taught Western audiences to acquire a taste for the product of his particular still.

Who was the black Houston Texans player who pulled a similar stunt with white scribes last summer? Arian Foster? He had missed two practices hurt, and when he returned to practice, they asked him how he was. He just repeated, robotically, “I’m just trying to be the best teammate I can be,” to every question from the white writers.

In this case, the white writer was merely following up on statements that Sherman has made, asserting that he’s the league’s best cornerback.

I suppose there’s an element of poetic justice here, since almost all white sports “reporters” are white Uncle Toms and Aunt Jemimas, who would never demand respect from such racist black scum, and who go out of their way to rationalize and suppress the never-ending bad news these guys are.

Last year, When Sherman went on his notorious preschool rant after beating the 49ers in the NFC championship game, some white imbecile at Forbes “informed” his readers that Sherman was smarter than they were.

And a day or two ago, some white sports guy on TV responded to Sherman’s charge against the NFL of a “double-standard” regarding the Patriots, “I just love this guy! He only speaks the truth.”

No matter what mess Sherman makes, his white servants stand ready to change his diapers, or endure his tantrums. but if they started ignoring him, he'd be the first to scream racism, and to demand their heads.

Shaun Hackett • Boulder, Colorado

I love how bad journalists lump themselves with all media. There is such a huge range of journalists between the good and the bad. The bad ones look for their money shot question that will stir up the most controversy just in an attempt to win the lotto (closer to paparazzi). The good ones actually ask the questions that fans want to hear about and will hopefully add some decent insight into a players mentality. Most of us don't want to hear the dur-dur questions. These questions make it sound like Sherman and Revis will be covering each other in the game. We hopefully all want to see these two teams playing at the best level they possibly can for the Super Bowl, and not have to worry about the media asking distracting questions.

Do we see Russell or Brady having to say who is the better QB? Do we see Lynch (thank you very much) or Blount having to say who is the better back? Be consistent.

[Garbage; they don't start such brain-dead controversies. The writers are consistently responding to players' statements.]

You shouldn't go to school for journalism for only selfish reasons. We don't need that kind of people in society, at all.

I responded,
What possible question could one ask Richard Sherman, and get an intelligent answer? If ego and self-esteem were IQ points, he'd be more brilliant than Einstein.

PHOENIX -- It didn't take long for Richard Sherman to make one point very clear in the lead-up to Super Bowl XLIX: He doesn't want to answer the cornerback question.

Seattle's All-Pro cover man systematically shot down repeated inquiries on Sunday about where he ranks with his foil from New England, Pro Bowl Patriots cornerback Darrelle Revis.

"I don't measure my game to anybody's, so I don't have a great answer for that question," Sherman told one reporter at Seattle's introductory press conference on Sunday. "I think my game measures up pretty well to myself."

Unhappy with Sherman's reply, the intrepid scribe doubled down, asking: "Do you still think you're the best corner in the league? You've said that before."

Sherman paused, before launching a verbal fireball, telling the man: "I don't really answer preschool questions, so you improve your line of questioning, and we'll talk."

I am Not “Duns Scotus”—at Least, I Don’t Think I am—but He Must be a Jew!
By Nicholas Stix

You’d think that anyone who knew me, would know that the surest way to get me to talk your ear off is to order me to shut up. In fact, if not for all the mooks and mopes who’ve issued me such orders over the years, I might have taken a vow of silence years ago!

Take the blog Alternative Right. Please. It ran an essay under the handle “Duns Scotus,” saying things I’ve been saying about the Frankfurt School for years on the occasional comment thread.

I’m not saying Duns ripped me off, and I don’t recall writing under that nom de guerre. It’s more a case of great minds think alike. And what would one expect form a blog published and frequented by a bunch of closet Jews.

I praised Duns accordingly:

nicholasstix • 11 hours ago
This Duns Scotus is a brilliant fellow. He reminds me … of me. Must be a member of The Tribe. Ahoy, brother!

• 1

I was also going to respond to one or two other comments, e.g.,

“Morgoth Morgoth • 20 hours ago

“Why you have a picture of a Jew impersonating Hitler I can only guess at, this would be more apt”

By asking, “Who’s the Jew?”

However, someone was unappreciative of my first remark.

Alternative_Right Mod to nicholasstix • an hour ago
Shut it down!

Well, the only thing to do was to move the discussion here!

[Thirty-Seven years after his death, Charlie Chaplin has been forcibly converted to Judaism]

"The conspiracy theorists claim that these 'cultural Marxists' began to use insidious forms of psychological manipulation to upend the west. Then, when Nazism forced the (mostly Jewish) members of the Frankfurt School to move to America, they had, the story goes, a chance to undermine the culture and values that had sustained the world’s most powerful capitalist nation."

Enoch, perhaps taking inspiration from his recent reading of Kevin MacDonald's Culture of Critique, states that Cultural Marxism doesn't need to be an actual conscious conspiracy. Here is the summing up of his argument:

“In the end the argument is just a semantic shell game used by leftists to avoid any discussion or criticism of actual ideas and policies and keep the debate focused on word games and obfuscation. Cultural Marxism is a useful and coherent label for a body of easily recognizable leftist theories and ideas concerning identity politics and oppression. We could just as easily call it Flying Spaghetti Marxism for all it matters though. What is important is the substance, which people like Wilson never actually want to discuss.”

Preston's view, expressed in an article commenting on Enoch's article, stresses the abandonment of Economic Marxism implicit in the term Cultural Marxism and explicit in the various causes that Cultural Marxism promotes:

“Lastly, PC and capitalism are not necessarily in conflict. Capitalism wants workers, consumers, investors, and new markets. This means operating among an ever greater number of demographics. It is therefore perfectly logical that capitalism would embrace anti-racism, feminism, gay rights, etc. They want to sell products to minorities, women, and gays, and hire them as workers and managers, not discriminate against them. (See Noam Chomsky’s comments on how big business supports anti-racism). I suspect the serious thinkers among the cultural Left realize this, which is part of the reason why they have softened their anti-capitalism in their old age. This also explains why the corporate class has mostly rolled over in the face of PC. Remember that Singapore (which the Left considers to be fascist, and which free market conservatives often hold up as a model) also has strict “hate speech” laws.”

Johnson, in a comment on Enoch’s article, follows a similar tack:

“Cultural Marxism (another term for it is the New Left) is completely consistent with capitalism. Cultural Marxism does not champion the working class against capital. National Socialism taught the Jewish Left that the working class could turn against them. Stalinism taught the Jewish Left that the totalitarian state can turn against them. Thus the Jewish Left began to abandon the Old Left and replace it with the New Left, which champions "inclusion" and upward mobility within the capitalist system of previously excluded groups. Most of these groups are mere proxies and avatars for the group that pushes this agenda and benefits from it most, namely Jews. Cultural Marxism has expanded and cemented Jewish hegemony in the West. The result is, as Jonathan Bowden pointed out, something previously thought to be impossible: a hyper-oligarchical form of capitalism with a reigning Left-wing value system. (It is Left wing, at least, until the Left conflicts with Jewish interests.)”

From his other writings and podcasts, Enoch could be fairly described as a race realist, gender traditionalist, American nationalist, cultural Christian, and believer in the market, in other words, not too distant from an old school Republican. Cultural Marxism, with its race denying, gender confounding, universalist, atheist, and socialist tendencies, is therefore an extremely convenient label for all the ideas and tendencies he is diametrically opposed to. Cultural Marxism is a greater convenience for Enoch as a catch-all bugbear than it would be for almost anyone else.

Those who do, do; those who can't, teach;
those who can't teach, teach Cultural Marxism.

Preston and Johnson's views, however, emphasize the sinister synergies between Capitalism and the Left, with Johnson giving this his usual Jewish spin – and not without reason in the light of the news that the Ferguson protests had largely been kept going by the generosity of George Soros. Rather than agreeing with Enoch, the views of Preston and Johnson significantly differ.

Both Preston and Johnson have ideas and attitudes that would be more comfortably placed on the Left. Johnson is much more socially liberal and has a keen interest in various economic theories like social credit that are truly anti-capitalist. Preston, of course, is well-known as an anti-state anarchist. I suspect that Enoch, in his troll-channeling humorous style, would describe some of Preston and Johnson's positions as "dildo" or even "autistic right," two phrases often employed on Enoch's excellent if irreverent Daily Shoah radio show. But cheap jibes aside, there is a real problem with ideological explanations of ideology and believing in "Cultural Marxism" just because it is personally convenient.

Preston, in his article, points the way by digging up some ideological history, something he is well versed in. Here he is on the surprising beliefs of the twin fountainheads of Marxism:

“Marx and Engels were essentially Germanic or at least Nordic supremacists, viewed indigenous peoples as non-historical, and regarded Western imperialism as a historically progressive force (they had the same view of capitalism).”

Preston would also be able to tell you that Marx was a rather sincere anti-Semite despite his own Jewish origins (self-loathing has perhaps always been germane to Leftism). What Preston's historical perspective reveals is that Marxism has greatly mutated and changed in its comparatively short history. Furthermore it has also developed remarkably diverse and contradictory regional variants.

This suggests that Marxism's actual essence is weak, or that it is merely a protean entity, ever ready to bend with the times. But such shape-shifting is not just limited to Marxism. We have seen it with Christianity and various political parties, such as the US Democratic Party, once the citadel of Ku Klux Klan power.

Far from the "insidious forms of psychological manipulation" of supposedly omnipotent academics (an oxymoron, in case you're wondering), what changed America was geopolitical expediency. In the 1950s with the threat posed by a particularly cunning and fascistic version of Communism, America was forced to reformulate its quintessential and, of course, ineradicable racism in such a way that it would not be a geopolitical drag on it in its struggle with the Soviet Union for the hearts, minds, oil, and markets of the non-aligned world.

Jim Crow might even have been around today if the balance of power had not tilted so dangerously against the West with the fall of China to Mao's Communists in 1949. Later still the liberal, secular West found an alliance with militant Islam to be particularly useful, as it sought to stem the spread of Communism by stirring up the Afghans.

History is full of such ideological backtracking, going all the way back to the Romans and their adoption of Christianity as a system for imposing a totalitarian system on their weakening empire – a move alas that did not pay off. Ideology, as it exists in the world, is nothing more than a protean form of convenience for particular political alignments and group interests, which are sure to shift from time to time. All ideological formations are prone to this plasticizing effect, which, over time, turns each one into a mockery of itself. What exactly is the point of any ideology besides putting a gloss on underlying factors?

But the clincher when it comes to considering Cultural Marxism and the absurd notion that an ideology can be a causal factor, rather than just a weird form of PR, is the Frankfurt School. This group of German-Jewish academics and its corpus of writings is cited as the engine of the Cultural Marxist Revolution that has supposedly conquered the West with its legendary "march through the institutions." But the Frankfurt School was essentially just a small group of ugly, uprooted academics with funny accents who couldn't write to save themselves, or anybody else for that matter. Just try reading their works – I dare you!

After being unceremoniously kicked out of Europe, they were horrified at ending up in a country that had no need for their Marxist claptrap. That Cultural Marxism then supposedly became such a big success is only explicable by the fact that it didn’t.

Adorno: not fond of short, clear sentences.

How can anyone claim that Cultural Marxism is an effective ideological force when its key texts, the major works of the Frankfurt School have hardly been read by any of today’s Leftists – and even if they have, it's a fair bet that they haven't been understood at all well. For an ideology to have any validity it has to have a clear cut message that can be communicated, and which can then move people. The Frankfurt school lacks these attributes.

Peoples and societies may be changing in many puzzling and aberrant ways, but none of this would ever take place if it were not for the consent of certain powerful economic and cultural elites, and the forces and interests that they channel. Ideology is just the wrapping paper for that particular package, not its substance.

The value system of something as large, complex, and powerful as the West or any other empire will never come from musty books and cloistered academics, but instead from trade systems, consumption patterns, and geopolitical power balances. If sticking a label on aspects of this is temporarily expedient, then names like "Liberalism," "Marxism," "Cultural Marxism," or even "Islam" may be appended, but, underneath, quite mechanisms do their work.

Islam is a good example of the protean aspects of ideology. It essentially got its start not as "the faith of the true believers," but as a rather sleazy device for uniting the desert tribes to take full advantage of the massive mutual weakening that the Byzantine and Sassanid Empires had been inflicting on each other for decades beforehand. The faith or ideology of Islam would have had no traction otherwise, and in the face of two healthy empires able to repel them, the tribes would have cheerfully returned to slitting each other's throats. It was plunder that built Islam, and when the plunder ran out, it went into a protracted period of abeyance. It's recent revival since 1967 as a supposed "ideological force" has much to do with the expediences of asymmetrical warfare for which its tribal origins give it some utility and its convenience as a channeling device for second-generation immigrant ressentiment in Europe.

So, how about Cultural Marxism? If it is not the real world manifestation of the world-changing brains of Adorno, Horkheimer, Marcuse, and their modern-day followers, what exactly is it? One thing is for sure: it is not a coherent set of ideas that is shaping the world in its image. The power flows the other way. Cultural Marxism is simply the gloss that a post-Christian West, caught in the habit of seeking moral justification, places on the decadent proclivities made possible by its unprecedented affluence. To kill it, you have to kill the post-Christian reflex, or else kill the affluence. Nothing else will do. Talking about it won't have the slightest effect.

January 26, 2015, 15:31
31 Comments

• Morgoth • 21 hours ago

''what exactly is it?''

It is the Jewish solution to the Gentile problem and though sitting on the Left of the political spectrum its reductionist view of European man sits nicely with the ruling money power, also Jewish.

You could take the Frankfurt School entirely out of the equation and we would still be where we are having permitted Jews to run riot in our lands. Whether it be Trotsky or Freud, Mel Brooks or Sarah Silverman, Saul Alinsky or George Soros, the nature of the Jew is obvious and should be well known to us all, it certainly was to Europeans in the past.

Writing in 1850 Wagner wrote:

"According to the present constitution of the world, the Jew in truth ... rules and will rule, so long as Money remains the power before which all our doings and dealings lose their force. That [historical circumstance]..has brought this power within the hands of Israel's sons - this needs no argument of ours to prove..."/Judaism in Music 1850

The point is with or without the Frankfurt School or Cultural Marxism we would still be watching cocksuckers on Television and our kids would still be going to School with wogs because Jews have a free hand in our lands.
• 18

Morgoth Morgoth • 20 hours ago

Why you have a picture of a Jew impersonating Hitler I can only guess at, this would be more apt
o

Cultural Marxism isn't race-denying, it's White race-denying. It denies Whites their identity while promoting the identities and perspective of non-Whites.

Secondly, all modern leftist ideas are rooted in anti-White/European hatred. There is no egalitarian or secular position that leftists will not abandon if it means harming Whites and strengthening non-Whites.

Witness the left's response to the Charlie Hebdo massacre: a lot of them openly sided with the Muslims. As Islam gains strength in the West, you're going to see a huge number of leftists openly supporting Islamic rule and converting to Islam because they see Muslims as their allies against the evil of White culture and civilization.

Cultural Marxism has no interest in race-blind politics, equality, or social justice, it's one and only goal is to destroy Whites and the civilization they built. Jews popularized the term 'anti-Semitism.' We need to start popularizing the term 'anti-Aryanism.'

When the primary villains in Hollywood movies are blond-haired, blue-eyed men and women regardless of the genre, when White students are constantly being singled out and reminded of their historical guilt, when entire school courses are devoted to the conspiracy theory of "White privilege," when Whites are subjected to psychological tests to determine how "racist" they are, when people are thrown in jail for opposing the non-White invasions of their ancestral homelands, and when, during all of that, Whites are simultaneously told that their own race doesn't even exist, that is anti-Aryanism. Is there a better term for any of this?
• 15

Arturo Pendriago to eiszeit • 19 hours ago

I cannot see how the argument of consumerism plays into the Cultural Marxism debate. And here is why: Corporatism is global. There is nowhere on this planet that is not run by corporations. They extract all the natural resources, build and populate factories to make products from those resources, then sell those products globally. The banks behind the corporations are also global and the banks can change the currency markets of countries anytime they want.

So my question is, how is it that moving the third world into the first world is somehow going to 'open up more markets'? They already have all of the markets covered!

And how does constantly denigrating and dispossessing white people, who are still the majority in Europe and America, help corporate markets? It doesn't make any sense.

The only explanation from the current societal environment that I can see, is to get rid of Whites. THis is what I see as the endgame, not to line the pockets of the oligarchs.
o 5
o
o
o Terd Ferguson to Arturo Pendriago • 5 hours ago

Taking advantage of the wage disparity between white nations and a 3rd world nation makes big $$$$. The only way to continue to make big $$$$ is to weaken whites politically.

Cheap foreign labor has always made big $$$$ for the wealthy, right League of the South dudes? Back me up here.
 2


Emblematic to eiszeit • 6 hours ago

Anti-Aryanism is exactly what it is.

The best way to respond to an accusation of 'anti-Semitism' is to never be defensive or try to qualify or explain. Always reply with an assertion.

Aryan is a word borrowed from Indian Sanskrit, and it's too narrow a definition of whites.

The civilizing power of whites has gone back tens of thousands of years and encompasses everything from the Nile to Mesopotamia, to "Northern India", to Japan.

Every single thing I've read about archeology, science, or human development in general has an arrow pointing directly towards Europe. There isn't a single instance of an arrow pointing away from Europe like, "the first tannery was found in central India or eastern India or southern India," which would have implied that industrial process was first invented in India. No the first tannery was found at the very western edge of the Indus Valley. An arrow pointing from a quite habitable Indus Valley across a most inhospitable desert and mountain range in southern Iran, the same Iranian hellhole that killed more of Alexander the Great's army than any human enemy; pointing directly at Europe and the tannery was dated to around the exact same time the Indo-Europeans would have arrived there.
Pick anything, pick anything off your head, and just look up it's history.

J.j. Cintia • 20 hours ago

The real reason is the Big Lie of jewish intellectual superiority. It isn't true at all. That 115 number they keep trotting out is just one part of a three part I.Q. test. 115 is the verbal score, but there are also a numerical and spatial parts not told. The numerical is mathematical skill which they score at an average of mid 80s. The spatial is a mechanical aptitude score which is in the 70s or retarded. That is why you never see jews as mechanics or engineers, because they don't understand machines. You're supposed to add all three up and divide by three. Which gets a number in the high 80s, or slightly higher on average than their Mexican gardeners and nannies.

Both Whites and Asians are smarter than they are, but the dark-skinned races are dumber. That is why they want dark skinned employees. Because they are dumber than they are. We are smarter, so we are a threat. So are far eastern Asians. Expect them to be attacked too.
• 9

Terd Ferguson to J.j. Cintia • 6 hours ago

The continued harping of the cult of Einstein by the media for the last 50+ years is proof enough they have an inferiority complex when it comes to intelligence. It's like how the media blows out of proportion the "accomplishments of the blacks," which everyone knows is non-existent.
o 1
o
o
OBEY, CONSUME, SLEEP to J.j. Cintia • 18 hours ago

looking all over Jewgle for a link, do you have one to support your claim?
o 1
o
o
Arturo Pendriago to J.j. Cintia • 19 hours ago

They are already talking about opening up Japan to third world immigration.

Lawrence Murray to Arturo Pendriago • 19 hours ago

If the Japanese automate enough jobs they'll survive population decline and come out better off than most. With immigration they'd be replaced rather than just shrink naturally in response to overcrowding, less demand for labor, and cultural stupidity.

Touchstone, King of Fools • 20 hours ago

"For an ideology to have any validity it has to have a clear cut message that can be communicated, and which can then move people."

I'm not sure that's true, or if true, relevant. The New Left (a term I like better than "Cultural Marxism") has very successfully moved quite a lot of people over the last 50-100 years, by smoothly shifting from one message to another, from "progress" to "peace" to "liberation" to "equality" to "rights", and so forth, as circumstances dictate.

"Cultural Marxism" such as it is, is a catch-all term for the postmodern version of the time-honored practice of producing ideology out of vice. The one unifying element of all of New Leftism, from turn-of-the-century Progressivism on up, is that it appeals directly to the baser emotions, mostly greed, jealousy, and lust, but occasionally also pride, schadenfreude and fear. It's lizard-brain politics, dressed up in a succession of colorful period costumes.
• 8

Alexandros to HoMegas • 18 hours ago

Secret Reports on Nazi Germany:
The Frankfurt School Contribution to the War Effort
Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse & Otto Kirchheimer
Edited by Raffaele Laudani
With a foreword by Raymond Geuss

http://press.princeton.edu/tit...

"During the Second World War, three prominent members of the Frankfurt School--Franz Neumann, Herbert Marcuse, and Otto Kirchheimer--worked as intelligence analysts for the Office of Strategic Services, the wartime forerunner of the CIA. This book brings together their most important intelligence reports on Nazi Germany, most of them published here for the first time."

"These reports provide a fresh perspective on Hitler's regime and the Second World War, and a fascinating window on Frankfurt School critical theory. They develop a detailed analysis of Nazism as a social and economic system and the role of anti-Semitism in Nazism, as well as a coherent plan for the reconstruction of postwar Germany as a democratic political system with a socialist economy. These reports played a significant role in the development of postwar Allied policy, including denazification and the preparation of the Nuremberg Trials. They also reveal how wartime intelligence analysis shaped the intellectual agendas of these three important German-Jewish scholars who fled Nazi persecution prior to the war."

The Frankfurt School was real and they had the full support of the US Government.
• 6

Peter Blood • 18 hours ago

Cultural Marxism goes back to Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxist who concluded that, having failed to capture the proletariat via violent revolution, due to the comforts the proles in the West enjoyed due to capitalist success (and capitalist cultural hegemony), Marxism would have to win via cultural hegemony. Cultural hegemony being the way that capitalists maintained control in the West, it would have to be replaced with a different cultural hegemony... a Marxist cultural hegemony. Hence, Cultural Marxism.
• 5

curri • 20 hours ago

"After being unceremoniously kicked out of Europe, they were horrified at ending up in a country that had no need for their Marxist claptrap. That Cultural Marxism then supposedly became such a big success is only explicable by the fact that it didn’t."
Frankfurt School's The Authoritarian Personality was very successful:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/ar...

Paul Gottfried writes:

You should read my last three books, all of which stress that The Authoritarian Personality profoundly affected American political thinking. It was essential to the postwar reconstruction of German “civic culture’ and the work was deeply admired by SM Lipset, the sponsors of Commentary, and scads of Cold War liberals. It was not necessarily viewed as the post-Marxist leftist source of moral corruption that I suggest it was in The Strange Death of Marxism. What made The Authoritarian Personality particularly insidious is that it was widely seen as a blueprint for non-totalitarian democracy both here and in Europe; and leaders in government and in universities read the book in that way. The fact that Adorno and Horkheimer (who later backed away from the implications of the work he had co-edited) were at the time Soviet sympathizers did not dampen the enthusiasm of the anti-Stalinist secularist intellectuals who tried to defend the study. Although the Jewish identity of the Frankfurt School may not have been the only factor leading to their anti-Christian, anti-fascist pseudo-science, denying its influence on the formation of Frankfort School ideas is simply silly. Adorno was only half-Jewish and raised as a Catholic but nonetheless paraded his Jewish genes in explaining how he had arrived at his critique of bourgeois, Christian society. It is furthermore is silly to pretend that Jews have not played a DISPROPORTIONATE role in greasing the skids for our moral and social disintegration. To recognize this is to recognize reality. What is more dubious is that Jews have caused this ruin, without the enthusiastic support or at least cowardly acquiescence of the white Christian majority. Although it is correct to note the significant Jewish contribution to the present decadence, it is naive to think that Jews are the only culprits in what you and I deplore...Christopher Lash’s True and Only Heaven includes a long section detailing the mainstream liberal support forThe Authoritarian Personality in the 1950s and 1960s. Lipset, Hook, Daniel Bell, Arthur Schlesinger, Richard Hofstadter and the members of American Jewish Committe, who sponsored Adorno and Commentary magazine, were among the anti-Communist liberals who admired TAP and who thought that it had relevance for our country. Although you and I may be to the right of these celebrants, it would be hard to argue that no anti-Communist had any use for Adorno’s ideas.
• 5

barzun to curri • 10 hours ago

It's much too, too difficult to read the literature and check footnotes and verify with primary sources, and to consider counter arguments. It's much better, and seemingly now accepted, to simply toss ad homs (johnson is a lib, preston is lib, enoch a troll), and base your arguments on strange assumptions only you make.
o 1
o
o
Lawrence Murray • 19 hours ago

It matters very little what the intentions of the Frankfurt school were. The modern intrepretation of their ideas is Cultural Marxism, which is a useful word (for us at least) to describe how an ideology nominally related to Marx is destroying national unity to create a population of atomized and deracinized wage slaves susceptible to leftism. The left would deny this because it makes them look insincere. We don't have to buy their explanation any more than they have to buy our harping about how diversity is not our greatest strength. To do so would discredit them and no one is going to willfully discredit their own cherished ideology.
• 3

"To kill it, you have to kill the post-Christian reflex, or else kill the affluence."
• 4

Lawrence Murray to conchobar • 19 hours ago

Salt the earth that bore the New English

curri • 19 hours ago

I think Auster is probably right (from the VFR thread on the Frankfurt School):

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/007815.html

It is the liberal belief in non-discrimination, not the the leftist belief in anti-whiteness, that is the key to the suicide of America, and it is the abandonment of the liberal belief in non-discrimination that is the key to the salvation of America.

I’ll add that the same applies to Europe, or at least to Britain. As became clear to me for the first time from listening to the British responses to the July 2005 bombing in London, the ruling principle in Britain is “tolerance.” It is not anti-whiteness. It is in the name of tolerance that they’ve allowed the creation of Londonistan. It is in the name of tolerance that they’ve continued to allow unprecedented numbers of immigrants from Eastern Europe to enter Britain, despite the catastrophic social effects of this immigration, a fact acknowledged by the whole British establishment. It is the British government’s position that to limit the number of immigration at all would be “racist.” It is thus the belief in tolerance as the ruling and defining principle of society that is undoing the British, and it is only the renunciation of that belief that can save them.
• 2

oberdan • 12 hours ago

Cultural Marxism is just a catch-all term for all the groups currently aligned against the historical white (mostly) hetero-males that built civilization. Whether materialist-capitalism, egalitarian-leveling, or the historic-grievance industry--they all rally against that idealistic/noble spirit of European men... perhaps no longer fully Christian, but still with a vision that encompasses eternity.
Is there a better term to describe them? Anti-White doesn't cut it because they love White women, as well as White-traitors and last men. It is simply a war against that Classical and Faustian spirit and their alliances are legion.
• 1

nicholasstix • 11 hours ago

This Duns Scotus is a brilliant fellow. He reminds me … of me. Must be a member of The Tribe. Ahoy, brother!
• 1

Alternative_Right Mod to nicholasstix • an hour ago

Shut it down!

curri • 23 minutes ago

"After being unceremoniously kicked out of Europe, they were horrified at ending up in a country that had no need for their Marxist claptrap. That Cultural Marxism then supposedly became such a big success is only explicable by the fact that it didn’t."

Wikipedia agrees with Paul Gottfried that the Authoritarian Personality was a great success:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/the_authoritarian_personality

Though strongly criticized for bias and methodology,[4][5] the book was highly influential in American social sciences, particularly in the first decade after its publication: “No volume published since the war in the field of social psychology has had a greater impact on the direction of the actual empirical work being carried on in the universities today.”[6]...The Authoritarian Personality remains widely cited in the social sciences and continues to inspire research interest today.[27]

But then the author seems to be claiming that academics are impotent and thus universities are unimportant.

Terd Ferguson • 6 hours ago

Fucking mega dittos.

Donar Van Holland • 7 hours ago

The author touches upon an old controversy: is culture/ideology driving the political and economical, or is it the other way round? The changes in 'marxism' can indeed have been caused by a change in the ruling political/economical factors. But it can also be that the driving ideology of our society lies deeper, and that 'marxism' in all its different forms is just a symptom of this ideology. I would say this deep seated ideology is egalitarianism, as derived from christianity, and especially protestantism.

Terd Ferguson to Donar Van Holland • 6 hours ago

Anti-Egalitarianism can be used just as much of an anti-white tool as Egalitarianism.

Anti-Egalitarianism is Meritocracy, after all, and guess which political party promotes that? The covertly anti-white Republican Party. Here's a few examples:

Egalitarianism has a horizontal and a vertical aspect. Vertically, it opposes hierarchy, such as classes or meritocracy, horizontally it opposes race, identity, tribe. You might say that Democrats and Republicans only differ, if at all, about the aspects of egalitarianism they stress.

I must admit though, that the deep ideological drive might also be hate of whiteness. For Jews this is natural, for whites it is inherited from so many centuries of christian self-hate, also known as "original sin".

Terd Ferguson to Donar Van Holland • an hour ago

I mean the literal definition of the word not some horizontal or vertical or diagonal thing.

See with Obama, his plan is affordable because he is a socialist and they believe they have a never ending money supply in the form of taxes. Remember, even if you don't like your deficit, you can keep it.

All public transit--buses, subways, and commuter trains--is to be shut down tonight at 11 p.m. Stranded NYC travelers are warned to “shelter in place.” (Without rescue workers, that will mean many deaths, due to exposure.)

No word on when New York City public transit will resume operations. This is only the second time ever that NYC transit has been completely shut down. The first time was for Hurricane Sandy in 2012.

Normally, this wouldn’t be a problem. I would just ignore de Blasio and schools chancellor Carmen Farina, and keep my son home, except that my kid and thousands of other New York City high school kids started taking the state regents exams yesterday, which continue tomorrow and Wednesday. There will be no city buses (and probably few or no subways)—though de Blasio will lie about that, as he did last year—and the streets will be unwalkable.

About Me

I am a dissident journalist, whose work has been published in dozens of daily newspapers, magazines, and journals in English, German, and Swedish, under my own name and many pseudonyms. While living in internal exile in New York, where I am whitelisted, I maintain NSU/The Wyatt Earp Journalism Bureau and some eight other blogs (some are distinctive but occasional venues, while others are mirrors), and also write for stout-hearted men such as Peter Brimelow and Jared Taylor. Please hit the “Donate” button on your way out. Thanks, in advance.
Follow my tweets at @NicholasStix.

$ $ $

The response so far to WEJB/NSU’s ongoing fundraiser has been very heartening, but we need tens of thousands of dollars more, in order to tide us over for 2012! If you have given, I thank you. If not, please consider making a donation.